A question for some non-catholic,,,The Catholic Church Baptizes infants.

[TriuneUnity]

God passed His promise down to the children inspite of the disobedience of the parents. God’s promise of salvation is for infants, no matter what the parents do. The children must respond to Jesus after they understand, just as the CofI had to keep the Commandments for themselves after they were old enough to understand. They failed over and over again, just like many of us.

You are adding a condition to the text that doesn’t exist in the text itself. It says no where that the promise is conditioned on “understanding.” Of course, they were to obey the covenant, just like the children of Israelites were to obey the covenant, but they were not entered into the covenant through circumcision AFTER they understood and obeyed, but before. In likewise, the children of believers are baptized into the new covenant community and are then instructed in the faith, to which they must understand and obey.

NT church: all believers (true disciples) in Jesus the Messiah (God in Human form, the King of Judah and the Lamb that was slain from the foundation of the world).

Agreed. And how is this church different from the church 100, 400, and 1000 years later - the one that has always baptized infants?

 

[TriuneUnity]

I think you’re incorrect. I believe the God of the NT and OT is far bigger than our mistakes or misunderstandings. That’s why I don’t think relationship with Him is based upon ritual. While many use wonderful faith in their rituals, many more ‘go through the motions’ with no real faith involved. Other don’t go through the rituals but have faith in Jesus. Jesus sees the heart (remember young David) not the ritual actions, and as usual, IMO.

The ritual is how the heart expresses itself, Dokimas. A dead ritual is only dead if the heart is dead. Baptism was not a suggestion by Jesus, nor is it a dead ritual. It is a command. Under the Baptist rubric, there were millions and millions of Christians for 1500 years that were willfully disobeying the commands of Christ. There is no ordinary thing as an unbaptized Christian.

 

[Matthew_P_Muehl]

I’m not talking about Israel, per se, Dokimas. What I am saying is that Baptists must prove that God has ceased to enter into covenant with the children of believers. Since God has always entered into covenant with covenant children, Baptists have to demonstrate that since the coming of Christ, He no longer does so.

Please define the NT church?

That hits the nail right on the head.
Great post and thanks…

Matthew

 

[Matthew_P_Muehl]

300 pound gorilla in the room = the quotes from the ECF’s that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the early Church baptized infants.

I would like to see those who reject infant Baptism interact withor at least acknowledge those.:nunchuk::twocents:

peace

That a big gorilla Lion… They will never be able to prove it. These people have a very narrow viewpoint and for some reason can not see the whole truth or will not accept it.
I will never understand those who praise and worship Christ and reject his church and it’s teachings?

Matthew

 

[Dokimas]

It doesn’t HAVE to be proven from the Gospel - that’s my poiint.
**You are *still ***under the false notion that the Bible fell from the sky before the Church was established. The Church and Apostolic traditions came before the NT was fully written and assembled.
Remember that it is the Church that is called the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim. 3:15) - NOT Scripture.

Read the Didache *(Teachings of the Apostles), *70 A.D., my friend and see the traditions that were taught by the Apostles - which are in perfect harmony with Scripture.

That being said - the case for infant baptism HAS been made using Scripture and logic by myself and others.
You have offered nothing but semantic games and denial.

It’s hard NOT to be a Protestant and not be anti-Catholic.

Think about it - the only other kind of Protestant would be one that is deeply immersed in the waters of relativistic thinking, wherein ALL faiths and ALL paths to God are equal and okay. Jesus taught that there is only ONE way - ONE gate, and it is narrow (Matt. 7:13-14).

I could respect an anti-Catholic far easier than a relativist. So if I call you an anti-Catholic - it’s almost a compliment to your convictions.

Tell me, why should I look any farther after I read a false statement from you? Which false statement? That I think the Bible fell from the sky. (I suppose if you meant from the Holy Spirit, then I could accept it as true.)

 

[Dokimas]

You are adding a condition to the text that doesn’t exist in the text itself. It says no where that the promise is conditioned on “understanding.” Of course, they were to obey the covenant, just like the children of Israelites were to obey the covenant, but they were not entered into the covenant through circumcision AFTER they understood and obeyed, but before. In likewise, the children of believers are baptized into the new covenant community and are then instructed in the faith, to which they must understand and obey.

Agreed. And how is this church different from the church 100, 400, and 1000 years later - the one that has always baptized infants?

The context of all NT mention of water baptism is repentance. That surely implies understanding.​

The church became different, in the context of the topic of this thread, when they started to baptize infants. There is no conclusive scriptures that include infants in baptism. The closest you have it the households being baptized. You’d have to prove the 5 households mentioned had infants. ALL other mentions are of those making a decision to repent.

 

[Dokimas]

Dokimas How many of the Apostles wrote down what was taught by Jesus. Do you think these Early Fathers didn’t know about those letters? Remember “ So brethren, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that were taught by us either by word of mouth or by letter…" 2Thess2:15
Some things were written others were taught by word of mouth. Why do you think that Origen wrote
"The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants.” ? of course you wouldn’t, because you couldn’t. You probably would have been labeled a heretic. Now if the ECF’s were mistaken what proof do you have that they were not mistaken when agreed the 2Thes2:15 belonged in the Bible? Can you show us proof, other than your opinion, that the Early Church ever came against Origen, Hypollitus, St. John Chrysostoms, and the many, many ECF"s that wrote FOR infant baptism?Here you are grasping at straws. Simply stating something without proof does not make it true. OK, show us proof that the Early Church was against infant baptism and that a misunderstanding crept in? You say it started early in the history of the church. We have shown you at the Early Church was baptizing infants because it was handed to them by the Apostles who were taught by Jesus. Now you proof to us that the Apostles were telling people NOT to baptize infants. Are you going to tell me that the disciples of the Apostles who were the earliest of the early church got it all wrong? Please show us some of those early church writings. And yes, Jesus told his apostles that His Holy Spirit would guide them and the gates of hell would not prevail. So you are saying that for 2000 years the Bride of Christ has been mistaken and Jesus has let His Church continue to be mistaken and then out of the blue, here comes the Holy Spirit to enlighten men in the true teachings of Jesus and the Holy Spirit telling these men that the Early Church (who with the guidance of the Holy Spirit compiled the Book Protestants like to bash the Catholic’s over the head with) was mistaken, and not a shred of evidence has ever been produced that the real Christians of that time were teaching NOT to baptize infants.On the contrary, that is what the non-believers of infant baptism have done. Yes and the Early Church KNEW FOR SURE that infants were to be baptized.

You told me nothing in this post except you have an unkind way of dealing with those that hold a different understanding. I guess you deserve a thanx for the effort. So, thanks.

 

[Dokimas]

**
It’s hard NOT** to be a Protestant and not be anti-Catholic.
If you’'re male, according to your logic, you’re anti-female. Whatever you are, you’re anti-anything else that isn’t what you are.

Actually, judging by your posts, you are anti-everything that doesn’t fit into your little box.

 

[TriuneUnity]

The context of all NT mention of water baptism is repentance. That surely implies understanding.

Only the ones wherein the preaching is for the purpose of evangelism.​

The church became different, in the context of the topic of this thread, when they started to baptize infants. There is no conclusive scriptures that include infants in baptism. The closest you have it the households being baptized. You’d have to prove the 5 households mentioned had infants. ALL other mentions are of those making a decision to repent.

Nor are there any conclusive Scriptures that exclude infants in baptism. However, the statement to baptize all nations does include them. And of course it involved making a decision to repent. There weren’t very many suburbanite Christian households in 1st century Antioch, after all.

 

[Dokimas]

I could respect an anti-Catholic far easier than a relativist. So if I call you an anti-Catholic - it’s almost a compliment to your convictions.

Only a warped mind would think being called anti-catholic would be a way of showing respect ,unless you are anti-catholic.

 

[Dokimas]

More of your denials - but no substance.

Give me a clear and comprehensive response to what the Fathers taught about infant Baptism and how they not only supported it but practiced it.

I issue this challenge to ALL Protestants who deny infant Baptism.

The NT doesn’t teach infant baptism AND it wasn’t practiced by the earliest church members. At least that’s the best understanding as one reads the NT without blinders of presuppositions.

 

[Dokimas]

Only the ones wherein the preaching is for the purpose of evangelism.​

Nor are there any conclusive Scriptures that exclude infants in baptism. However, the statement to baptize all nations does include them. And of course it involved making a decision to repent. There weren’t very many suburbanite Christian households in 1st century Antioch, after all.

Matthew 28:
18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.
19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
20 “teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.​

1st make disciples (Can infants be disciples at their age?)​

2nd they are to be taught (Can infants be taught about Jesus or to obey His command?)​

Looks like Jesus DID NOT include infants in the Great Commision.

 

[TobyLue]

Dokimas

Tell me, why should I look any farther after I read a false statement from you? Which false statement? That I think the Bible fell from the sky. (I suppose if you meant from the Holy Spirit, then I could accept it as true.)

Tell us please, when did the Holy Spirit print the Bible and drop it on your lap and assured you that YOU would be able to interpret it correctly?

Oh, and BTW, that statement that the Bible fell from the sky, that’s not far from the truth because that seems to be the attitude of all “bible believer onlys” ignoring the fact that Jesus said that THE CHURCH is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth. Also ignoring that fact that NOWHERE in the bible does it say that we are to believe ONLY in what is printed in the Bible. Please show us book, chapter and verse.

You criticize Catholics because nowhere does it say in the Bible specifically to “Baptize infants” but yet you believe in the Bible only but you cant show us chapter, or verse, or even show us that the Early Church believed in the Bible only, oh, say around the years 90, 100, 200, 300. You have been shown proof as to why the Early Church believed in infant baptism, but you hide behind the “it’s not in the bible, it’s not in the bible”! OK then, show us where it says in the Bible , “You are to believe ONLY in the Bible”

 

[TriuneUnity]

Matthew 28:
18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.
19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
20 “teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.​

1st make disciples (Can infants be disciples at their age?)​

2nd they are to be taught (Can infants be taught about Jesus or to obey His command?)

Jesus thought so. Matthew 18:1-5

 

[rev_kevin]

Matthew 28:
18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.
19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
20 “teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.​

1st make disciples (Can infants be disciples at their age?)​

2nd they are to be taught (Can infants be taught about Jesus or to obey His command?)​

Looks like Jesus DID NOT include infants in the Great Commision.

All this don’t matter to TriuneUnity as long as the infant has faith, which he says they do.

 

[TriuneUnity]

AND it wasn’t practiced by the earliest church members. At least that’s the best understanding as one reads the NT without blinders of presuppositions.

Only if you restrict “the earliest church members” to less than 40 years after the resurrection.

 

[rev_kevin]

Jesus thought so. Matthew 18:1-5

Matther 18:1-5 is about the disciples arguing about who would be the greatest. Jesus used a child to help his self-centered disciples get the point. We are not to be childish, like the disciples arguing over petty issues, but childlike, with humble and sincere hearts. See the disciples had become so preoccupied with the organization of Jesus’ earthly kingdom that they had lost sight of its divine purpose. Instead of seeking a place of service, they sought positions of advantage.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Matther 18:1-5 is about the disciples arguing about who would be the greatest. Jesus used a child to help his self-centered disciples get the point. We are not to be childish, like the disciples arguing over petty issues, but childlike, with humble and sincere hearts. See the disciples had become so preoccupied with the organization of Jesus’ earthly kingdom that they had lost sight of its divine purpose. Instead of seeking a place of service, they sought positions of advantage.

That is true… but please address verse 6.

 

[TobyLue]

"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
20 “teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.

Boy, you have this bassackwards.

The Catholic Church does go out and make disciples. How?
First baptizing them including the children, then teaching them.
You want to teach them first, THEN, baptize them.
You are reading in to Jesus’ great commission as:
Go out and make disciples of all the adults, (and ONLY the adults) teach them first what is written in the bible that has not been compiled yet, then give them a KJV, and when they have fully understood, after rigorous teachings, then call them forth to an altar call THEN baptize them, which of course baptism is going to be just a symbol, and will actually not mean much, but make sure they have reached adulthood.

The CC has been following the command of Jesus since its inception witness by the fact that the Church has had the same teachings since before the bible was compiled and will continue till the end of time because HE WILL BE WITH HIS BRIDE till the end.

Unfortunately, many believe that Jesus divorced his bride shortly after he ascended and 1500 years later found the “real bride”. I guess Jesus lied when he said he would be with his Church till the end of time.

 

[RockyRoad]

Only a warped mind would think being called anti-catholic would be a way of showing respect ,unless you are anti-catholic.

Doki…I didn’t know you were anti-Catholic. I never got that impression. You just disagree with some of what the CC does or teaches. I don’t think that makes you anti-Catholic.

Your brother in Christ
Rocky